You Canna' Take My (Intellectual) Freeeeeedom!!: Filtering Internet in Schools

The internet started to make an appearance in my classrooms around third grade--I have a dim memory of attempting to search the web for an encyclopedia article and being somewhat frustrated by the format. Until about sixth grade, the internet was present and accessible in my classrooms, but not used to the extent that it is today--this was in the days of dial-up and SLOO-OO-OOOW connection speeds, which I imagine had an effect on classroom use. But starting in sixth grade, internet research and online resources became more and more prevalent in my school assignments. Internet use was usually a classroom activity--my teachers would reserve the computer lab for the purpose of completing a particular assignment or working on ongoing projects. Lab time was supervised by the instructor and it was rumored that the school librarians could see what you were doing from a special program on the staff computers (it was not entirely clear whether or not this was true).

I remember being aware of one instance of a classmate viewing inappropriate content--a boy in my class got busted for printing out pictures of naked ladies and chihuahuas, although not both in the same pictures. The librarian seemed equally annoyed by the fact that he had wasted so much paper to do this. At the time, my reaction was primarily one of disbelief: it seemed like the kind of thing that you do when you are deliberately trying to get caught.

I don't remember my middle school or elementary school computers being filtered, but high school was a different story. My high school years coincided with the emergence of social networking, which apparently presented a problem for the administration. Xanga, an early blogging site that was popular with a lot of girls in my class, was blocked my junior year, along with MySpace. Facebook opened up to high school students during my senior year, and for a while, the administration was not wise to this great secret. They eventually caught on and Facebook was similarly blocked. While we didn't find ways around the filters, we did change our browsing habits to avoid the filters--Facebook and Xanga might be blocked, but Text Twist on Yahoo! Games was absolutely fine.

The most frustrating part of these actions was the fact that it seemed that the administration could not trust us enough to make decisions on our own. The blocking of social media sites was largely justified by the fact that it was not school-related, regardless of the fact that some use of the sites occurred during study hall or lunch periods. It was not considered useful, so it was banned.

One of my teachers used to tell us, "It's a private school: you check your rights at the door," which I suppose is true to a certain extent. But even if that is the case, is there not an intrinsic value in treating students with respect?

I don't know if they still filter or block sites--there's been some significant turnover in the administration since I graduated, so things may have changed. The explosion of social media and the advent of the smart phone (in high school, I was rocking a silver flip phone with no camera and limited internet connection that I was not allowed to use because it was something like $1.99/minute) may make it futile to restrict internet access on school grounds. So, if technology has taken the teeth out of filtering software, what do you do?

Filtering or blocking cannot and should not be mistaken or substituted for supervision or education. Blocking Facebook did not teach me about the dangers of internet predators, nor did it convince me that it's a waste of time: the only thing it taught me was that the administration didn't really understand or care about my information needs. So what's to be done? Instead of wasting time and energy trying to restrict and control access to technology, why not use it for your own educational purposes? Show kids how to use social networking to collaborate on projects or share ideas. Lead classes on internet safety, including cyberbullying. Teach kids how to incorporate web and print materials into research projects. Help kids find resources and tools that reflect their interests and needs (Power Point too boring? Try Prezi. Difficulty organizing? Try Things or One Note). Respecting the needs of your patrons goes a heck of a lot farther than condescension, regardless of the age of the patron.

Some of the Best Books Are Banned: Banned Books Week

As you are most likely aware, it is Banned Books week. Today I made this display:

While this project was done in my capacity as the interlibrary loan manager/general adult services sidekick, it concerns youth services in that most banned/challenged books are challenged/banned in order to "protect the children." Case in point:

The fact that Captain Underpants is so often on the chopping block never ceases to amaze and amuse me. Are we as a society really concerned that our children might think underpants are funny? (Hint: it's too late. This is a commonly held belief). Do the amusing qualities of underpants really qualify as Serious Business that should not be Taken Lightly?

The perceived problems with this particular title are sexual content and setting a poor example. The presence of sexual content is fuzzy at best. I've outlined it in a flowchart:

1. There are underpants in this book.

2. Underpants are worn over underparts.

3. Underparts are involved in sex.

4. By using the power of the transitive property, you can conclude that this book has SEXUAL CONTENT.

The notion of "setting a bad example" has a little more merit in that it actually exists in this book--the protagonists are poor students and notorious cutups. The issue here is that "a bad example" is so subjective that it is difficult to enforce in terms of defining suitable content. Some people might believe that Captain Underpants should be banned because the kids set a bad example; however, there are others who might argue that people who try to ban books set a bad example by trying to force individual values and beliefs upon the larger community.

There was another issue unrelated to Captain Underpants that I came across while making this display, and that's the idea of silence. A lot of books have been banned or challenged because they contain elements that are objectionable--racism, sex, foul language, etc. Take To Kill a Mockingbird. This book is frequently challenged because it contains accounts of racism. But what I can't quite wrap my brain around is this: the book talks about racism in order to show why it is wrong and how it creates a society that is unkind and unjust. How is that an unsuitable or dangerous idea?

The other problem that accompanies this is the idea that difficult issues should not be discussed with children. It is true that not every child is intellectually and emotionally prepared to take on the problems of racism, sexism, violence, or what have you, but is it not just as harmful to pretend that these issues do not exist? It often seems that situations where material is "unsuitable" for children are really code for "I don't feel like exploring the complexities of this issue or answering the questions that a child might have." The importance of dialogue cannot be understated--with dialogue, adults have the opportunity to help children understand and think about difficult issues. With silence, the opportunity to learn and understand is lost.